SUMMARY of the discussion so far Thanks for all the input — it helps me understand other people better when I get to observe conversations online or in person where stares of unbelief abound, or angry comments fly, even outright condemnations — I hope we can recognize that "Hunting" is not easily defined if we go beyond our very own opinion....
Vetmx, Motorhead, airgunmike56, and Chukar60 take the term "Hunting"
in the most common and general sense — of taking the life of a wild animal (and following all legal and ethical requirements).
This way most people will understand them correctly when they use the term "Hunting."
Vetmx adds helpfully that
there are different levels to this activity. Like in sports and many other pursuits.
nervoustrig adds that people like to differentiate levels of "Hunting" difficulty because they want "validation" — or, maybe, perceive of themselves to be better than others(?).
For
L.Leon, and
dens228 the
kind of animal defines what is "Hunting" and what is not — it must be a "game" animal.
L.Leon adds that the animal
meat and/or hide must actually be used in a meaningful way.
JoeRJr and superchikn add that there has to be some kind of
effort in the kill, maybe a pursuit.
superchikn and L.Leon mention certain
techniques that go into the animal killing process — but insists in the end that the animal type (=game) is decisive.
ThirdPlace — in honor of his screen name he gets the third entry into this post — has a very interesting stance, and he says it very well:
"Hunting, that is, what I do
for the purposes of reconnecting with the natural world and—should I be able to—kill an animal for meat and hide, is the closest thing to a religion that I have."
So, "Hunting" is a philosophy of life or religion, and requires the animals to be "game animals."
Like others, he
almost widens his definition that "Hunting" is the arduous pursuit of wild animals.
For
SteveV the definition of "Hunting" depends on the country, state, and township he currently happens to be, in other words:
However the local authorities describe legal "Hunting" — that for him is true "Hunting."
Emu states that "Hunting" requires
•an animal
•and that the animal is both
wild and
not native to the environment*, and
•that it is pursued with some effort.
*(Emu's example of a farm: rats and squirrels qualify for "Hunting" — but
NOT pigeons (as they belong to the farm like the chickens and cows).
Dr. Kralenstein requires some kind of "Fair Chase" without using the term — since for him using bait disqualifies it from being called "Hunting."
• Vetmx would see using bait just as a different level of hunting — it's "Hunting" — but at an easier level than without bait.
Nomadic Pirate 66 and Emu widen the definition tremendously: For them "Hunting" does not require the intent of killing. It's just the pursuit of wild animals.
I appreciate all your input and sharing your opiniones!
Matthias
If actually hunting for use as you state. IMHO, yes it is. Processing for future use means? Simply that… Like killing one animal to use as bait for another targeted animal… You’re not eating the former, but are using it to bag the latter.
I am genuinely surprised that Manny the wild pig hunter par excellence would opt for a definition of "Hunting" that would not necessarily require the intent of killing. 
I started the OP with a base definition of "Hunting" — the lowest common denominator: 
But I was mistaken, the common denominator is even more broad — or "lame," to use your term, L.Leon 
➠ I certainly have gotten a much better understanding of what our community thinks "Hunting" actually is. Thanks to all your contributions.
It's already in the making. 
I'd best not say more here. 
